 The Idiot's Guide To Rigging Thread, Support for the Vehicularly Challenged |
  |
 Apr 16 2004, 12:15 AM
Post
#195
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222  |
I've been dredging through the Vehicles section and all other pertinent bits in SR3 and some of the rules in R3, in preparation for designing ships for this thread. Admittedly, I haven't gotten to the Advanced section in R3, and there's a lot of other stuff in R3 that I didn't quite get yet/only had a glance at, but I've got a few questions:
Complex Action to fire 1 weapon, and only one weapon with any drone? Is it common to make an exception to this if there are several identical weapons on the drone, such as a set of several fixed MGs, or is something of the kind actually accommodated in the rules? If a vehicle has several Launch Control Systems, does it still need several riggers, to fire one missile or rocket each as a Complex Action? Complex Action to lock onto a spotted and tracked target? It seems that even if you've already spotted the target, through an earlier Active Sensor Test, you still have to make another as a Complex Action to get a lock. Which is really silly, considering how tracking and locking on to targets happens with RL air radars. It's a good thing it doesn't take an action to perform an Active Sensor Test (right?), but it shouldn't take more than a Free to lock on either. IRL with a Track-While-Search AA radar you just put brackets on top of your favorite dot and blam, insta-lock-on. Or am I just being silly? Drones can make Passive Sensor Tests, but not Manual Gunnery? This seems like something that might be in the Advanced Rules section, but I won't get that far in a while, even if I read all night. It just makes no sense at all to me that a drone would be incapable of Manual Gunnery when it can do a PST. Or am I being silly again? (Sorry for interrupting your demo-game, but I figured I could get this out of the way during the hiatus.) |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 16 2004, 12:57 AM
Post
#196
|
|||||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
By strict rules, only one weapon can be active at a time. This is frequently houseruled by people who don't even realize that they're houseruling it.
Once you've hit them with an Active Sensor test, you have a lock, unless I misread the section.
You're being silly ;) It makes sense to me the way it is. I'll try to think if I can find a good way to explain it, though. If it bothers you, I'd kill Drone Passive Sensor Tests before allowing Drone Manual Gunnery. ~J |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 16 2004, 01:22 AM
Post
#197
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Went back to the Sensors section in SR3, and it seems that an Active Sensor Test is not an action at all, but the Sensor Test to lock on for Sensor Enhanced Gunnery is a Complex. I think the implication is pretty clear: Even if the vehicle has already spotted the target with its Sensors, it will need to make a new Sensor Test as a Complex Action, according to canon. Simplified example: A drone SAM-launcher (Sensor-6) system is sitting in a remote valley, with orders to follow air traffic with its Sensors (active radar) and transmit info about it to battalion C^2. An unsuspecting smuggler T-bird (Sig 5) roars into the valley from behind a dead zone, 20 km away from the SAM. The SAM makes an Active Sensor Test automatically, using 6 dice against a TN of 5. Nobody has ECM or ECCM. The SAM's radar picks up the smuggler easy with 4 successes, and thus identifies it as a heavily modified T-bird. The T-bird is oblivious to all this (bad rolls, stupid smuggler). There's serious shuffling about in battalion C^2, with questions being asked from local commercial air control networks. After some time it is established that the T-bird has no business whatsoever in the area, is illegal, is most likely piloted by a dangerous criminal, and is carrying military weapons for sale on the black market of a neighboring country. The SAM is promptly ordered to shoot the T-bird down. By now, the smuggler is getting suspicious of the huge flashing light and beepind sound on his Early Warning System. He notices he's being tracked from somewhere further into the valley, and decides to dodge out of it, back to the SAM's dead zone. Now, the SAM is in a hurry. It goes for an immediate shot. Sensor-enhanced gunnery is obviously the way to go, and this is a drone not being directly rigged so there's no choice anyway. Lock on and shoot. Now, for the important part: By your interpretation, does the drone SAM launcher get to automatically fire away, without any action for locking on, since it scored 4 successes on an Active Sensor Test when it first spotted the T-bird? I'm pretty sure canon would require a new Complex Action, and the T-bird would be long gone. Personally, I would only require a Free Action to lock on, and the T-bird would be toast.
My reasoning is: The Drone has limited "intelligence". It isn't very smart, but it can distinguish shapes etc, since it can do PSTs. It should thus be capable of firing based on that passive understanding of sensor output, without the need for a lock-on. Since shape-distinguishing and passive tracking technology (such as TV-guided bombs and missiles) are already available, I don't think it's a huge leap that a 2060s drone can fire its weapons based on its interpretation of what it "sees" with passive sensors only. I even think most vehicles would allow some help with doing a Passive Sensor Test. A good Sensor array should, when necessary, automatically give hints, such as outlining humanoid shapes in red on a TV screen, or giving a warning when there's a barely audible sound of a rocket engine somewhere. That sort of thing. Whether this would work game balance wise, I'm not sure yet, I'll need to finish up R3. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 16 2004, 02:47 AM
Post
#198
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
That's manual gunnery which, as far as I know, doesn't require the lock-on complex action ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 16 2004, 02:50 AM
Post
#199
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
More Random Crap:
If I read the section correctly, degradation of any RC Network channels caused by a MIJI Intrusion attack does not cause any Target Number modifiers other than for the Perception Test to figure out the Intruding image is false. Thus a RC Network could theoretically be running at 9 points of degradation in all 3 channels, and the only numerical effect would be +3 TN (or +9, if you're cruel) on the Perception Test to spot the false image. Correct? Assume a RC Network has been attacked by both a Meaconing and a Jamming attack, both to it's Command channel, and both attacks had 3 net successes. The Command channel now has 6 points of (or Serious) Degradation. Does that mean that all Driving, Gunnery and other physical tests performed with a Drone's Pilot as well as IVIS and Comprehension Tests in the network have a +3 TN? I'm thinking yes, for sake of simplicity. Too much trouble to keep track of exactly what attack has caused how much degradation to which channel. Follow-up on the last: Does degradation of any channel from Jamming attacks cause a loss of Smartlink modifiers, or should that big refer only to the System channel? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2004, 02:55 AM
Post
#200
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Not really. After that lock-on, you can start blasting the dot to oblivion with AMRAAMs or Sparrows, or Sidewinders in other modes. You can also benefit from the radar tracking information from the lock-on for more accurate cannon-fire -- the HUD will show you approximate lead, etc. Since all those benefits are derived from the fact that the active radar is locked on the target, I consider it Sensor Enhanced Gunnery. Unless you really were just trying to be funny, and tried to say that putting brackets over a dot is a test in Manual Gunnery. Sorry, but someone is apparently Jamming my Social channel. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 16 2004, 10:19 AM
Post
#201
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'm fully aware that each additional question I clutter this thread with makes it less likely for me to get an answer for some other question, but each new one seems more important than the old ones.
p. 56 R3, under Anti-Missile Defense Systems says to "use the procedure employed when attacking an aircraft." Does that refer to some rules in particular, or does it simply mean that such attacks are conducted with the usual vehicle combat rules? Asking because I don't remember seeing any rules about attacking aircraft specifically. And concerning Sensor Tests and locking on, do you think this would be OK for a house rule:
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2004, 03:39 PM
Post
#202
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 320 Joined: 13-August 02 From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS) Member No.: 3,094 |
I think what you got wrong in your post with the SAM example was his early warning system. Sensor lock in Rigger land does not equal radar lock today. sensor lock is the drone recognizing the extent of it's target, and calculating where it will be, actively tracking it using ALL of its sensors, so that would be the highlighting you talk of, that is the sensor lock on. not nessesarily directional radar, but just an understanding of what the target is.
-Mike R. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2004, 03:47 PM
Post
#203
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 320 Joined: 13-August 02 From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS) Member No.: 3,094 |
don't forget about missle intellegence. that make sa difference too in the sam example.
as for the radar locked AA gun, that is a good example of a sensor enhanced gunnery. now imagine for a moment that you were trying to shoot a moel aircraft with that same gun (sig 8) do you think that your gun would autotrack and give lead for an object that is much more difficult to lock onto? the act of putting the crosshairs on target was the complex action of locking on (very easy on a sig 2-3 jet). I'm betting you didn't pull the trigger til after the lock? than you did one complex action (sensor lock on) and then another (fire missles). it doesn't take very long, but a rigger is moving fast enough that what you described wouldn't take any longer than a rigger doing the same on his vehicle. as for drones, the drone doesn't have the advantage of knowing human processing power, so it has to positively lock on to the target to figure out where to shoot, just like tha man, the difference is the man can ID the right target much faster. In response to the housrules p. 56 R3, under Anti-Missile Defense Systems says to "use the procedure employed when attacking an aircraft." Does that refer to some rules in particular, or does it simply mean that such attacks are conducted with the usual vehicle combat rules? Asking because I don't remember seeing any rules about attacking aircraft specifically.[/QUOTE] there is no special rules for aircraft that I know of, they just mean vehicle combat. use the incoming missle as one vehicle and the missle defence as the weapon. And concerning Sensor Tests and locking on, do you think this would be OK for a house rule: * Any vehicle/drone can maintain a number of Sensor lock-ons equal to its Sensor rating. I think thisshould be linked to the drones pilot rating, not the sensor rating. * As a Free Action, a rigger can add or remove any number of targets from the "lock-on list" of a vehicle he is currently rigging, a drone he has jumped in or any drone in a RC Network where he is in Captain's Chair Mode, unless another rigger is jumped in that drone. if you use a one time or repeatbale Active test to lock on to all targets in range, than this makes some sense. but just telling the drone to shoot at that car, when the drone hasn't seen the car, ishouldn't work without some sort of battletac system * Each target that has been locked-on is considered locked with the number of successes the targeting vehicle scored in the latest (Active) Sensor Test against the target. There is no separate Sensor Test when an object is locked. If in the latest Sensor Test the vehicle did not score any successes against the target's Signature, it cannot be locked on (obviously). I would require at least one active sweep for the combat area, as maybe a simple action, to aquire all the targets that are in range * As a Complex Action, a rigger can "clean sweep" his Sensors, allowing a new (Active) Sensor Test against all objects in his Sensors' range. Roll the Sensor Test dice only once, and compare those scores against all objects in range. This can be done with a directly rigged vehicle, or any drone within the rigger's RCN that does not already have a rigger jumped in. yeah like this except required and treated as an active must be done anytime a new craft enters range that you want to hit, regardless if the passives picked it up or not (passives are for saying hey somethings here, active is for saying get em boys) -Mike R. This post has been edited by Fahr: Apr 16 2004, 03:59 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2004, 05:40 PM
Post
#204
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Is it possible to use a normal weapon to target a normal (non-naval) missile in flight?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 17 2004, 11:03 PM
Post
#205
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I wasn't thinking very clearly when I posted... It was only supposed to be a metaphore for the smuggler in the T-bird succeeding in his Sensor Tests to notice the SAM-drone. The numbers are still correct, I think.
Believe me, with all the missiles flying in the Ship Design with Rigger 3 thread, I can't forget about missile intelligence. :) The example wasn't really supposed to be about whether the missile might hit, however, only about whether the drone can even fire before the T-bird is in a dead zone again.
No need for that when missiles are concerned. In the A-A TWS radar example, you could put the brackets on the target (this shouldn't take more than 0.5 seconds from an unwired, mundane, 2060s pilot), flip the master arm (0.2 seconds) and fire an AMRAAM (push button, 0.2 seconds). Realistically, there shouldn't be a single Complex Action there. By the canon rules, there are 2, and the whole operation takes 6 seconds. The more I think about A-A cannon fire, though, the weirder it seems. Because cannons on fixed mounts (as on all RL fighter jets) have to be aimed by moving the jet itself, the Maneuver Scores of the aircraft should matter a lot. With Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery, they never would at all for the actual shooting. Still, putting crosshairs on a target doesn't take any action whatsoever when doing Manual Gunnery, so it certainly shouldn't when you're doing Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery (where you can move crosshairs at the speed of thought/rate of turning of the weapon mount and with near-perfect accuracy).
Okay, just wanted to check. I'm doing it just like this in the Ship thread.
I'm basing it on the fact that IRL the limiting factor is the sophistication of the radar or other sensory equipment. An A-A radar can do this on its own, without any input from the pilot other than which targets s/he/it would like to track as targets, which to just keep a check on. Thus I'm quite confident the Sensor rating would be better for determining the amount of locked on targets.
As far as I can understand the rules, you don't need any action to do the Sensor Tests. I'm currently assuming that on the rigger's or vehicle's action, s/he/it automatically gets a no-action Test to spot anything new that could potentially be spotted by the Sensors. I am currently running this test as a single Sensor Test rolled once, and then comparing those results to all the new potentially spottable targets. This does not affect targets already spotted in a Sensor Test. So with the drone and the car, if the drone has succeeded in a Sensor Test to spot the car earlier and has not since lost contact with it, the drone knows exactly where the car is. Locking on to it shouldn't be more than a matter of focusing the Sensors of the drone at it, which shouldn't take a significant amount of the rigger's time.
My whole point was that I do not understand why you'd need to separately "sensor sweep" when locking on when your Sensors already have acquired the target. When the Sensors of a vehicle already know the exact type of target, location, heading, speed, everything about the target, I simply do not get why it'd still need to have another go at the target, this time taking a long while, with it's Sensors. We disagree with the last point, for reasons mentioned above.
Reading through the pertinent rules again, I suppose you could. Completely up to the GM, however. The rules do not specify that only vehicle weapons can fire at missiles, although it does say to use "standard vehicle combat rules". What TN a missile would be to hit withouth Sensor-Enhanced Gunnery is not mentioned anywhere, just like a whole lot of other stuff necessary to actually use those rules (refer to the Ship Design thread for the exact problems). I'm guessing it'd be Too Fucking High™. PS. I want some kind of Longest Posts Award. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Apr 17 2004, 11:04 PM |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 18 2004, 04:20 PM
Post
#206
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Well, when I said "normal weapons" I was actually thinking in terms of a MMG mounted on a vehicle.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 12:47 AM
Post
#207
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,652 |
Per SR3 pgs. 135-136 and 152, I've always treated a successful the Active Sensor Test (which is a complex action) as a successful lock-on for Sensor Enhanced Gunnery. In addition, there is no need for future active sensor tests to retain lock-on unless the drone wants to try for more successes to get additional information (see table on pg. 136), or something happens that would increase the TN for the Active Sensor Test (for example, losing direct LOS, which would increase the TN by +2).
Accordingly, when I give drones commands (or program my SOP commands in advance), I always include guidance to attempt Active Sensor Tests when not doing anything else. There's no canon limitation on the number of lock ons tracked, although the GM could certainly apply Comprehension Test TN penalties if the drone had to deal with a crowd of potential targets. Achieving pre lock-on is the only way drones (not directly controlled by a rigger or with robot enhanced initiative) can be effective in combat. Otherwise, since they won't get more than one action a turn (a drone with Pilot 3 controlled via Captain's Chair mode has initiative of 3 + 1d6), the drone will only be firing once every six seconds. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 03:32 AM
Post
#208
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Since there is no mention of a normal Sensor Test, Active or Passive, taking an action in the section describing Sensor Tests, I automatically assumed that they do not take any action. E.g. when a vehicle appears in the Sensor range of a drone, I assume the drone gets a free, no-action Sensor Test to notice it. If a drone does not get a free, no-action Sensor test, how does it know what to lock on to? The example of Sensor Enhanced Gunnery in SR3 p. 153 also suggests that you have to get some form of Sensor Test to know that there's something there, and then you have to make a Complex Action Sensor Test in addition to that in order to lock on. I suppose the wording of the chapter could be taken to mean that multiple lock-ons are possible. Could someone start a poll on whether, when and what kind of Actions people assume Sensor Tests to take? I doubt I can, yet, because of my crappy ISP still acting up.
In that case, I'd say you can certainly shoot missiles down with it. You already can with Heavy Railguns and Medium Naval Guns, MMGs make more sense than those. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:36 AM
Post
#209
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Wouldn't be too much of a problem with it since thats how it's done in the matrix. New Icon, free (as in no action) Sensor test, granted all you get is somethings there so you have to analyze it still. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:48 AM
Post
#210
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The Sensor Test table, however, says that even with that first Sensor Test you can identify the target very accurately (type and model, identify by unique features), as well as getting the usual sensor data: Location, heading, speed. My whole point is, that data should be sufficient for a lock-on without any further fiddling about with the Sensors, never mind 3 seconds of fiddling for a non-wired pilot.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 12:39 PM
Post
#211
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Not to change topics, but I'm highly confused by the way the errata lays out medical clinics in vehicles. The errata changes the people space requirements to 36 CF per patient and 48 per medtech and ups the equipment size for customization to 75 CF.
I frankly don't understand how the doc wagon CM variants work (where are they getting that extra 300 or so CF?), and have to ask the following about a regular roadmaster (80 CF). As near as I can tell, you could put a 75CF medical facility in the back of one, but because of the lack of people space, it would count as a bad or terrible condition for the first aid modifiers. Is this the best that can be done in an after-market Roadmaster? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 01:18 PM
Post
#212
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That would seem to be the case. I wouldn't be too thrilled about that as a GM, because the vehicle does not then have enough space for even a human corpse. An RV seems the overall best choice for a shadowrunner ambulance chassis. Too bad the Ford-Canada Bison has such a crappy CF rating.
With the DW CM variant, they've simply re-designed the whole thing and used maximum rating Increased Cargo Space. 400 CF, the turret, clinic, etc, it's legal. The DW CM simply adds well over 40 cubic meters of space to the normal CM -- the equivalent of lengthening the vehicle by more than 4 meters at least. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 08:02 PM
Post
#213
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
So what would you put the Sig and Armor of a Great Dragon ATGM at? I'm thinking probably Body 2, but I need to know whether or not I'll be needing AV rounds to scratch it... ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 19 2004, 08:08 PM
Post
#214
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
None of the Anti-Ship Missiles have any armor, so I find it extremely unlikely that a Great Dragon would. There are 2 Body 3 missiles, which weigh 495kg and 750kg, and 5 Body 4 missiles and torpedoes which weigh between 750kg and 2250kg. I think Body 1 would be sufficient for the 3kg (!) Great Dragon. That thing's smaller than several RL LAW-rockets. A single shot with a 9mmP could easily swat it down, the problem should be hitting it.
I've been planning on designing Anti-Ship Missiles of my own. The canon ones suck ass. If only one could get a Chemical Rocket power plant on a UAV Drone... |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 08:45 PM
Post
#215
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Well, it's the fact that the weapon itself is intended to punch through opposing armor that suggests to me that the missile ought to have some armor... though if the anti-ship ones don't have armor, it sounds like the ATGM might not either.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 08:55 PM
Post
#216
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
These weapons are almost always not supposed to physically penetrate any armor while intact. As soon as they hit the target (or indeed before they hit the target) they will explode, and various effects from different kinds of shaped charges take care of things from there on. Remove the explosive charge from one, and it would flatten against a tank like the piece of plastic junk it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 09:14 PM
Post
#217
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 870 Joined: 6-January 04 From: Idaho Member No.: 5,960 |
can I cut in here with a stupid question? Thanks.
Can you rig without a VCR? My friend made his character with no VCR and only a remote control cranial thingy. I told him that it wrong and you MUST have a VCR in order to rig? Who is right? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 09:18 PM
Post
#218
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Without a VCR and only a Cranial Remote-Control Deck you can control drones in Captain's Chair Mode, as per p. 154, SR3. Only someone with a VCR can rig drones, ie. jump into them/operate them in primary mode.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 07:01 PM
Post
#219
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 255 Joined: 10-May 03 From: CB/Omaha Sprawl Member No.: 4,568 |
Sorry for my lapse in attendance to this thread, look for something tonight :) things have been pretty hairy here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th February 2026 - 09:11 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.